[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: LDAP C API draft v3: Small suggestion
I am okay with adding it, since we already have other more significant
changes to put in and will need to reissue the draft one more time.
--
Mark Smith
Netscape Communications Corp. / Directory Server Engineering
"Got LDAP?"
JR Heisey wrote:
>
> It is just for LDAP implementers convienence so extension options can
> be defined such as
>
> #define LDAP_OPT_MY_EXTENSION (LDAP_OPT_PRIVATE_EXTENSION_BASE
> + 1)
>
> Perhaps this is not within the scope of the draft or I could be
> getting a bit anal. :)
>
> JR
>
> Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > JR Heisey wrote:
> > >
> > > How about defining
> > >
> > > #define LDAP_OPT_EXT_BASE 0x4000 /* to 0x7fff inclusive
> > */
> > >
> > > in section 10.2, the last paragraph on page 20.
> >
> > Okay with me, but how do you envision applications using this?
> > Perhaps
> > to compare a given option to see if it is a private or experimental
> >
> > extension vs. a standard one? I am not sure how much value that has
> > in
> > practice.
> >
> > Also, I'd prefer a less cryptic name for the macro. Perhaps
> > LDAP_OPT_PRIVATE_EXTENSION_BASE or similar.
> >
> > --
> > Mark Smith
> > Netscape Communications Corp. / Directory Server Engineering
> > "Got LDAP?"
>
> --
> -
> J. R. Heisey
>